Next Article in Journal
The Power of Acceptance of Their Disability for Improving Flourishing: Preliminary Insights from Persons with Physical Acquired Disabilities
Previous Article in Journal
“I Don’t Know Whether It’s Priority, or Capacity, or Both”: Implementation Gaps in Employment Policies Targeting People with Disabilities in Kenya and Bangladesh
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Disabilities
Volume 4
Issue 4
10.3390/disabilities4040049
disabilities-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Factors Affecting Experiential Learning Experiences of University Students with Disabilities

by
Shaohong Liu
1,
Kayla D. Bazzana-Adams
2,
Michael deBraga
3 and
Stuart B. Kamenetsky
1,3,*
1
Department of Psychology, University of Toronto Mississauga, Mississauga, ON L5L 1C6, Canada
2
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 4Z6, Canada
3
Institute for the Study of University Pedagogy, University of Toronto Mississauga, Mississauga, ON L5L 1C6, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Disabilities 2024, 4(4), 801-814; https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities4040049
Submission received: 22 July 2024 / Revised: 24 September 2024 / Accepted: 3 October 2024 / Published: 9 October 2024
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Background: Experiential learning (EL) experiences are an important component of a university education, positively impacting career-related attitudes, knowledge, and skills. Students also require EL opportunities to gain experiences required for admission to competitive graduate and professional programs. Students with disabilities face barriers accessing and benefiting from such opportunities. Purpose: This study examined the degree to which demographic factors, type and severity of disability, dispositional factors, and overall adjustment and well-being are predictive of the quality of EL experiences among university students with disabilities. Methodology/approach: A survey was distributed to undergraduate students with disabilities who have participated in EL courses. The results were analyzed using multiple linear regression. Findings/conclusions: Dispositional and adjustment and well-being variables, including the environmental mastery dimension of their psychological well-being rather than demographic factors, such as gender or type and severity of disability, are significant predictors of the quality of EL experiences among students with disabilities. Implications: For students with disabilities to have academically and professionally successful EL experiences, post-secondary institutions must continue to provide appropriate accommodations and educate instructors about the diverse and complex needs of this student group. This must include an understanding of the uniqueness of each individual student’s needs.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Experiential Learning (EL) is defined as learning from direct, personal experience and reflecting on that experience to gain a deeper understanding and apply it to future situations [1]. Scholars spanning nearly a century have emphasized the central role of experience in human learning and development [2,3,4,5,6]. They agree that EL is a dynamic, holistic process involving the whole person and applicable at all societal levels, not limited to traditional classroom settings.
For EL to be beneficial to all participants (instructors and students alike), it must consider the student’s perception of the learning opportunity. Each individual’s disposition affects their experience of EL. For instance, a confident, extroverted person will experience an EL opportunity differently than an introverted person. Studies by Dyer and Schumann [7] and Lengnick-Hall and Sanders [8] have shown that despite differences in learning styles, experiences, academic levels, and interests, students consistently demonstrate high levels of personal and organizational effectiveness, the ability to apply course materials, and satisfaction with both course results and the learning process.
Ultimately, EL ensures individuals benefit from experiences in ways that enhance the learning of disciplinary content more effectively than traditional learning environments. Importantly, one group of students that has been less extensively studied within the context of EL is students with disabilities, particularly those with “invisible disabilities”.
The present study addresses the challenges encountered by students with disabilities during their engagement in EL experiences. The aim is to gain a better understanding of these challenges, with the overarching goal of informing more inclusive pedagogical practices in EL. Such practices are essential to ensure that all students, including those who have disabilities, can equally benefit from EL programming. Certainly, pedagogical practice advocates for a conscientious and scholarly approach to course design. This necessitates thorough consideration of the diverse needs of all potential students to optimize targeted learning outcomes [9]. Such an approach lies at the core of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) community [10]. One effective method to achieve this is by actively soliciting student perspectives on their EL experiences, which in effect encourages self-reflection [1].
Trigwell [11] underscores the significance of this perspective, emphasizing that comprehension is best achieved through reflection both by the student and the instructor, where the latter can explore teaching methodologies that will best produce the desired learning outcomes [10,11,12]. This reflection involves a comprehensive examination of how EL experiences contribute to students’ personal growth within their specific field of study [13]. Consequently, EL necessitates the full engagement of every participant to harness the maximum benefit from the experience [14,15,16,17].
Research into the impact of EL has made notable strides across various disciplines, particularly in psychology and other health-related fields [18]. However, substantial research on the direct influence of EL on the learning process remains relatively scarce [18,19,20,21]. Nonetheless, Burgstahler [22] has shed light on the positive influence of EL opportunities, illustrating how they correlate with career-related attitudes, knowledge, and skills among university students, including those with disabilities.
Over the years, universities have developed policies to accommodate students with a wide range of disabilities. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles have significantly impacted policies aimed at leveling the playing field for all university students. Therefore, while UDL is rooted in flexibility, simplicity, and equity, the UDL framework stands as a pivotal force in ensuring fairness and inclusivity in education [16,23]. In a recent review of the literature examining the role or impact of UDL, Cumming and Rose [24] highlighted six key reasons as to why UDL is effective: (a) recognition of learner diversity: UDL recognizes that students have unique and diverse needs, challenging the view that students learn in the same way; (b) increased engagement and satisfaction: studies have shown that students, both with and without disabilities, have high satisfaction rates with UDL implementation; (c) accessibility without singling out: UDL allows students with specific needs to access course materials without the need for accommodations or singling them out; (d) improved teaching: instructors who implement UDL principles in their teaching report that it improves their teaching; (e) professional development and training: effective implementation of UDL requires training and support for instructors, highlighting the importance of professional development in UDL and the need for instructors to have access to UDL peer “experts” who can mentor them in applying UDL principles to their practice; and (f) guidelines and resources: an emphasis on the importance of following the UDL guidelines provided by the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST), which organize the implementation of UDL according to three core principles: multiple means of engagement, representation, and expression. These guidelines provide instructors with specific strategies and examples of how to implement UDL in their courses.
By embracing the UDL approach, educators empower themselves to craft instruction that caters to the diverse needs and learning styles of every student, thereby cultivating an environment of inclusivity and support for all learners [23,24]. Such accommodations conform for the most part to the Social Model of Disability, developed by disability rights activists in the 1970s and 1980s. According to this model, disability resides within an “oppressive environment” rather than within an individual’s limitations. As such, it is incumbent upon society to provide appropriate services, accommodations, and universally designed environments that remove barriers and enable individuals with disabilities, and everyone else, to fully participate in all society has to offer. Universities created accessibility offices and services that ensured that entrances to buildings and washrooms are physically accessible to wheelchair users and now provide reasonable academic accommodations, such as extra time to write exams and submit papers, and visual and auditory learning aids that provide a fair and level playing field for students with disabilities (see [25,26]). Despite the legal requirements of universities to accommodate students with disabilities, it is not always clear to what extent this needs to be performed by faculty, and if so, what their role might be [27].
The nature and severity of a student’s disability is likely to significantly influence their EL experiences as well. Such factors conform, for the most part, to the Medical Model of Disability, which has dominated Western society since the 1800s [28] according to which disability is caused by impairments within one’s body. As such, reducing the disability experience is affected by treating the broken body leading to a cure, which will enable the individual to fully participate in society. Not all disabilities have a cure. Kowalski et al. [29] observed that specific disabilities were linked to negative outcomes among university students: anxiety disorders were associated with adverse physical symptoms, while physical disabilities correlated with increased depression, ostracism, and lower self-esteem. Brigham et al. [15] reported that students with learning disabilities (LD) encounter difficulties across multiple domains, including information acquisition, working with numeric data, spoken or written expression, information recall, attention, and motivation—all of which are crucial for successful EL experiences. These challenges, particularly those related to spoken or written expression, can constrain these individuals’ ability to demonstrate competence. Moreover, LD often coexist with other impairments, exacerbating the severity of their disabilities and further complicating their learning needs.
Hong [30] reported that university students with disabilities often face stressors related to physical demands, mental and emotional struggles, and social stigmatization. For instance, minor distractions can trigger heightened anxiety and sensitivity in students with attention deficits or Tourette’s syndrome. Additionally, students with diagnosed mental health conditions may contend with medication-related side effects, such as fatigue. These factors underscore the need for a nuanced understanding of the impact of disability on EL experiences. The more severe the symptoms of any disability, the greater the likelihood that the disability will negatively impact a student’s ability to engage with and benefit from any educational program, including EL. This becomes even more apparent when considering the inherent challenges associated with a typical EL environment, where engagement relies on concrete experiences [18]. Implementing such experiences is inevitably more challenging for students with disabilities.
One factor that can significantly impact EL experiences is whether students choose to disclose their disabilities. While disclosure can facilitate a student’s access to necessary accommodations, the invisibility of a student’s disability may hinder them from receiving the support they require [31,32,33]. However, opting not to disclose a disability will prevent students from qualifying for accommodations altogether and may indirectly limit instructors’ ability to address explicit curriculum needs [33,34].
Several dispositional factors, including self-esteem, locus of control, personality, and adult attachment style, can impact the quality of EL experiences among students with disabilities. Self-esteem, defined as an individual’s self-evaluations, has been associated with job satisfaction among adults with mild intellectual disabilities, irrespective of their employment setting [35]. Additionally, when measured as core self-evaluations, self-esteem is linked to the subjective well-being of university students with disabilities. Higher core self-evaluations tend to correlate with greater acceptance of disabilities, increased social support from significant others, and elevated levels of employment-related and social self-efficacy. These factors are all positively correlated with overall life satisfaction [36].
Locus of control refers to an individual’s attributions regarding their control over the consequences of their behavior [37]. Students with disabilities tend to exhibit an internal attributional style for both positive and negative events [38]. However, the precise impact of locus of control on the overall well-being of students with disabilities remains uncertain and warrants further investigation, as both internal and external loci have been linked to different positive outcomes [39,40].
The Big Five personality framework is a hierarchical model that categorizes personality traits into five domains (Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism). These traits play a role in shaping self-efficacy and outcome expectations when students with LD choose a major [41]. Moreover, Big Five factors can potentially intensify certain disability symptoms that affect EL experiences [42]. The association between Big Five personality traits and the quality of EL experiences necessitates further investigation, with potential correlations with academic motivation and grades [43].
Adult attachment styles are attachment representations formed during early parent–child bonds, which influence individuals’ expectations of closeness or separation and subsequently impact their subjective quality of life [44]. Among individuals with physical disabilities, a secure attachment style predicts higher self-esteem and greater life satisfaction [44].
Students with disabilities often exhibit lower levels of adjustment, quality of life, and well-being, making them less likely to graduate from university compared to their peers [45]. Adjustment and well-being encompass various aspects, including perceived stress, physical symptoms, subjective well-being, and psychological well-being. Perceived stress relates to individuals’ perceptions of their lives as unpredictable, uncontrollable, and overwhelming [46]. University students with disabilities tend to report higher levels of perceived stress compared to their peers. Those not registered with accessibility services often experience even higher levels of perceived stress [47].
Disability-related variables, such as the nature and severity of mobility limitations and the level of assistance required, have been identified as significant predictors of perceived stress [46]. Personality factors, including Big Five Neuroticism, have been shown to negatively influence physical symptoms among students with disabilities, further affecting their overall well-being [29]. Cunnah [31] reported that students with disabilities have different experiences in university settings compared to work-based settings, where they are more likely to experience positive identities and a greater sense of inclusion.
Subjective well-being, defined as an individual’s current quality of life [48], is likely to be influenced by factors such as the mode of EL delivery. Heiman and Olenik-Shemesh [49] found that students with LD exhibit higher subjective well-being during online courses compared to their peers. This suggests that factors such as the mode of EL delivery may predict the well-being and satisfaction of students with disabilities in EL experiences, which has gained particular relevance since the COVID-19 pandemic.
Psychological well-being diverges from subjective well-being by adopting a more comprehensive perspective, incorporating elements such as identity, significance, and interconnectedness [50]. Research by Koca-Atabey et al. [51] suggests that the severity and impact of disability emerge as substantial predictors of psychological well-being among students with physical disabilities. Moreover, other factors, including gender and self-reported health, have been identified as predictors of psychological well-being among residents in assisted-living facilities [52]. Well-being has remained largely underexplored in studies concerning undergraduate students with disabilities, and the quality of their EL experiences even more so.
The present study examined the following research question: “what is the predictive relationship between disability type and severity, dispositional and well-being factors, and the quality of EL experiences among students with disabilities?” It was hypothesized that at least some demographic and dispositional factors would significantly predict the quality of EL experiences. The findings from this research can provide valuable insights for EL instructors, enhancing their understanding of the unique needs and challenges faced by students with disabilities. This understanding, in turn, can inform the design and implementation of EL courses, ultimately leading to improved experiences and learning outcomes for these students.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

Participants were American and Canadian undergraduate students who self-defined as individuals with disabilities who had taken or were in the middle of completing any of the following courses: (i) Research Opportunity Program (ROP), Independent Research Program (IRP), or thesis courses. Such courses entail a student conducting empirical research in a laboratory under the supervision of a faculty member. (ii) Experiential learning courses involving work placements. Such work-integrated learning and service learning (also recognized as community-engaged learning) courses offer academic internships designed to integrate classroom academic learning with learning from practical work-based experiences. (iii) Summer abroad courses entail the completion of the program and degree credit courses at an international location relevant to the subject matter of the course. All of these courses fit within the institution’s umbrella of EL, and while these courses may differ in general form, they are all subject to the EL paradigm as defined in this study.

2.2. Procedure

EL administrators from the three campuses of the University of Toronto (instructors teaching EL courses, ROP coordinators, Summer Abroad Program officers, etc.) were contacted by email and asked to distribute a recruitment letter to potential participants. It outlined a description of the study, what participation entailed, and compensation. It also contained a link to the online survey (hosted on Qualtrics.com, accessed on 11 January 2021), which consisted of a series of questionnaires examining demographic and dispositional variables, type and severity of disability, and overall adjustment and well-being. The link to the questionnaire was also posted on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Instagram to expand recruitment beyond the University of Toronto. The survey took approximately 30 to 60 min to complete. Information and a consent form were provided before participants began the questionnaire. Debriefing information, including the purpose and implications of this study, and researcher’s contact information were provided upon survey completion in case participants were interested in receiving study results or had any questions. The survey, procedure, consent and debriefing methods were all approved by the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board (REB).

2.3. Measures

The survey consisted of the following questionnaires: Demographics, Disability Identity, Locus of Control, Self-Esteem, Big Five Personality, Physical Symptoms, Experiential Learning Quality, Subjective Well-Being, and Psychological Well-being.
Basic demographic variables including gender, age, year of study, program(s) of study, current cumulative grade point average, and most recent semester grade point average were requested. A modified version of the Four-Factor Index [53] was used to assess socioeconomic level. This questionnaire assessed participants’ parental occupational classification, educational attainment, and socioeconomic status (SES). A Disability Identity Questionnaire was developed and included questions pertaining to type of disability, when the disability was acquired or diagnosed, whether the disability influenced the student’s choice of specialty or area of focus, whether the disability is visible, accommodations received, reasons or concerns for accessing accommodations, and support received in the community. The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 [54] was utilized to measure severity of disability by assessing difficulties in six domains of functioning due to health or mental health conditions, including understanding and communicating, getting around, self-care, getting along with people, life activities, and participation in society.
Dispositional measures consisted of four questionnaires. The Locus of Control Questionnaire [55] assessed concern for success and failure in academic experiences by assessing four sets of cognitive contributions, including internal/stable, internal/unstable, external/stable, and external/unstable. The Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale [56] was utilized to measure global self-worth. The Big Five Personality Questionnaire [57] assessed five major dimensions of adult personality: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, And Neuroticism. The Adult Attachment Questionnaire [58] assessed three subscales: depend, anxiety, and close.
Overall adjustment and well-being measures consisted of four questionnaires. The Perceived Stress Scale [59] was utilized to measure the degree to which current situations in participants’ lives were appraised as stressful. The Cohen–Hoberman Inventory of Physical Symptoms (CHIPs) [60] was utilized to assess a variety of physical symptoms and overall health. The Subjective Well-Being Scale [61] was utilized to measure satisfaction with life. The Psychological Well-Being Questionnaire [62] assessed six domains of well-being: self-acceptance, positive relations with others, environmental mastery, autonomy, purpose, and personal growth.
The Experiential Learning Experiences Questionnaire was specifically developed for this study to assess the type and quality of participants’ EL experiences with a special focus on how a student’s experience was impacted by their disability. It included questions on the extent to which the EL supervisor(s) was/were accommodating and knowledgeable regarding disability issues, disability-related barriers (structural, attitudinal, systemic, etc.) both before and during the program, disclosure of disability, and disability-related resources. This questionnaire contained three multiple choice questions, four Likert scale type questions, and four open-ended questions. The open-ended questions were used to collect qualitative data, for instance, “What advice would you give the current EL students in the same program with a similar disability?”

2.4. Analytical Strategy

A series of between-subject analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted comparing the mean differences in quality of EL experiences between (i) genders, (ii) the primary types of disability (physical/orthopedic, deaf/hard of hearing or hearing impaired, blind or visually impaired, cognitive disability including traumatic brain injury (TBI), autism, chronic health condition, learning disability, ADHD, psychiatric disability, and other), (iii) EL type, and (iv) EL setting.
A multiple linear regression was conducted to determine whether age, year of study, average SES, disability type, disability severity, Big Five personality factors, attachment style, locus of control, self-esteem, physical symptoms, perceived stress, subjective well-being, and all domains of psychological well-being are predictive of the quality of EL experiences. All analyses were performed in SPSS 27.0.

3. Results

Of the one hundred thirty-seven participants who responded, eight were excluded for not self-identifying as having a disability and/or for not participating in an EL program. An additional 22 participants were excluded because they did not complete one or more measures, resulting in a final sample size of 107 participants. A total of 54 (50.5%) of these were recruited through social media. There were forty-eight males (44.9%), fifty-six females (52.3%), and three participants who identified as non-binary (2.8%). The average age was 29.8 years (SD = 11.2). The average year of study was 3.17 years (SD = 1.39). There was no association between participants’ age and year of study. A total of 76 participants (71.0%) identified as local students, and 31 identified as studying elsewhere (29.0%). Most participants (83.2%, N = 89) were from an average or above-average socioeconomic background, while 18 participants (16.8%) were from a low socioeconomic background. Both the primary type of disability and the age of acquisition were broadly distributed (Table 1 and Table 2).
More than half (57.5%) the participants indicated that their disability had an influence on their choice of specialty or area of study. A total of 61 participants (57.5%) indicated a visible disability, and 45 participants indicated an invisible disability (42.5%). Sixty-six participants (62.3%) indicated that they had requested or received only formal accommodations (i.e., accommodations made through a disability services office or other official channels, including extended times for tests, alternate format books, readers, or sign language interpreters), twenty-seven participants (25.5%) indicated that they had requested or received only informal accommodations (i.e., accommodations made through an informal agreement with a faculty member or supervisor), six participants (5.7%) indicated that they had requested or received both formal and informal accommodations, and seven participants (6.6%) indicated that they had neither requested nor received any accommodation. The reasons given for not requesting or receiving accommodation included not having a diagnosis, difficulties working with the accessibility office, reluctance to disclose their disability, and not wanting to be judged by others as being lazy due to the invisibility of their disability. The average severity of disability score was 89.63 on a scale that ranges from 1 to 180 (SD = 22.35), with a higher score indicating a higher severity disability.
Participants identified several obstacles for participation before and during the EL program including inappropriate accommodations, anxiety before and during a trip (for international programs), colleagues not knowing about their disability, and difficulty navigating workplace accommodation processes. A total of 33 of 107 (30.8%) participants indicated that they had encountered disability-related barriers during their EL experience which were either structural, attitudinal, or systemic. One participant specified that their concerns with their disability were brushed off and not taken seriously, while another participant had encountered attitudinal barriers from their instructor. Of the participants who indicated that they had disclosed their disability, 37 (34.6%) had disclosed their disability to a university disability service office, 39 (36.4%) to program faculty, 40 (37.4%) to practicum supervisors, and 27 (25.2%) to other students/non-supervisor colleagues. Twenty-eight (26.2%) stated that they had disclosed their disability during the application process.
The resources that participants found to be helpful during their EL experience included social networks (e.g., family and friends), staff working for international programs (e.g., instructors and other team members), mental health professionals (e.g., psychiatrists and psychotherapists), community groups for students with disabilities, assistive technology (e.g., noise-canceling headphones and audio recording devices), and online learning resources. Some disability-related resources that participants wished they had access to included a quiet room to write tests, the Speechify App, a hotline for mental health-related situations in the country in which they completed their EL, more university guidance regarding what resources are available for specific disability types, and better access to accommodations. Some advice that participants wanted to give the current EL students in the same program with a similar disability included speaking to advisors about studying strategies, having a strict daily schedule to follow, asking about accommodations in advance, discussing concerns before traveling to ease anxiety, making friends with people who are understanding of the student’s disability and personal struggles, staying connected with existing social networks, building a support plan with a mental health team, and being confident.
Table 3 and Table 4 illustrate the frequencies and percentages of participants regarding the type of EL they participated in and the setting in which their EL experience was carried out. Table 5 illustrates the average scores for each of the survey items that address the quality of the EL experience.
Between-subject ANOVAs comparing mean differences in the quality of EL experiences found no significant differences between genders, disability types, or EL types. However, significant differences in EL quality were found between the different types of EL settings [F (4, 101) = 8.893, p = 0.000] (see Figure 1).
Post hoc comparisons using the least significant difference test indicated that the mean score for international programs was significantly higher than that for on-campus research (p < 0.001), off-campus research (p < 0.001), and off-campus workplace practica (p < 0.001).
A multiple linear regression was performed to evaluate whether age, year of study, average SES, disability type, disability severity, Big Five personality factors, attachment style, locus of control, self-esteem, physical symptoms, perceived stress, subjective well-being, and all subscales of psychological well-being are predictive of the quality of EL experiences. The model explained 72.1% of the variance in EL quality [F (26,58) = 5.756, p < 0.001]. Five variables (year of study, Big Five Neuroticism, Big Five Openness, subjective well-being, and the environmental mastery domain of psychological well-being) significantly predicted the quality of EL experiences. Scores for all dispositional and adjustment and well-being variables show reasonable variance (Table 6).

4. Discussion

This study aimed to identify predictors of the quality of EL experiences among students with disabilities, exploring how these experiences vary based on the type and severity of disability, dispositional factors, EL format, and the specific setting in which EL is conducted. Our findings align with existing research on the role of the Big Five personality traits in educational experiences, particularly concerning university students’ academic performance [43] and outcome expectations among students with learning disabilities (LD) regarding major selection [41]. Brown and Cinamon [41] observed that lower levels of openness were linked to higher outcome expectations among students with LD, a trend potentially extending to EL experiences. Students with lower openness may have elevated expectations for their EL experience, potentially leading to dissatisfaction if those expectations are unmet. Our results show a strong positive association between Big Five Neuroticism and Openness and the quality of EL experiences. This indicates that students who score higher on Neuroticism and Openness are more likely to be satisfied with their EL experiences, reflecting previously established correlations between these personality traits and educational outcomes.
These findings underscore the importance of UDL principles in addressing the diverse needs of students with disabilities. While UDL is designed to promote educational equity, its effectiveness hinges on instructors being fully aware of their students’ specific needs [63]. This awareness is particularly crucial for students with “invisible” disabilities, who may not readily disclose their challenges, resulting in a communication gap between student and instructor [64]. Our findings emphasize the importance of accounting for dispositional factors to ensure positive EL outcomes for all students. Therefore, it is essential that instructors receive appropriate training to facilitate a supportive EL environment in accordance with UDL principles.
Prior research suggests that students with disabilities are less likely to graduate from university compared to their non-disabled peers, a disparity partially attributable to lower quality of life and well-being [45]. Our results corroborate these findings, demonstrating a significant relationship between subjective well-being and the quality of EL experiences.
Interestingly, while previous research highlights the impact of physical demands on students with disabilities in higher education [30], our quantitative data did not reveal a significant relationship between physical symptoms and EL quality. However, qualitative data from students with ADHD and other LD indicate that physical stressors, such as the need for quiet test-taking environments, remain an important consideration.
Our results also suggest that the environmental mastery dimension of psychological well-being is a predictor of EL quality, albeit to a lesser extent than other variables. Environmental mastery, defined as an individual’s ability to manage their surroundings and create contexts that meet their needs, appears relevant in EL settings where students must navigate complex environments. This finding highlights the importance of access to accommodations, such as quiet rooms or assistive technologies, in fostering a sense of environmental mastery. Ensuring that instructors and supervisors are well-informed about the needs of students with disabilities is critical in this regard.
This approach aligns with the SoTL principles as outlined by Felten [10] and Lawrie et al. [17], which advocate for collaboration between students, instructors, and other stakeholders in the development of inclusive EL programs. Instructors, as key figures in the EL process, must proactively design courses that anticipate potential obstacles for students with disabilities, especially those who may be reluctant to disclose their conditions. This would also ensure a compliance with UDL principles as pointed out above. The more knowledgeable instructors are about not only their students’ disabilities but also their dispositional factors, the better equipped they will be to implement accommodations and foster a positive learning environment, ultimately enhancing students’ sense of environmental mastery.
Our findings also support previous research indicating that the quality of EL experiences for students with disabilities varies based on the setting [31]. Specifically, we found that EL experiences tend to be more positive in international settings, where university staff, who are generally more attuned to students’ educational needs, play a larger role. This contrasts with workplace EL settings, where the focus may be less on education, resulting in less favorable experiences for students with disabilities.
Consistent with the literature on the invisibility of certain disabilities [31,32,33], our qualitative data reveal that students with invisible disabilities often fear being judged or disregarded when requesting accommodations. This fear aligns with previous studies indicating that students with invisible disabilities are hesitant to disclose their conditions due to concerns about stigma [64]. These barriers to accessing accommodations likely diminish students’ sense of environmental mastery, further highlighting the need for proactive, inclusive instructional practices that anticipate and address the complex needs of all students.

4.1. Limitations of the Present Study

The sample included Canadian and American students from a broad range of colleges and universities, with participants engaging in various types of EL experiences; therefore, this sample is likely sufficiently representative of the EL experiences of students with disabilities more broadly. However, the disability type and severity were based on subjective self-reports and the number of participants in each disability category was relatively small. As a result, comparisons between disability types lacked statistical power. Further data collection could provide deeper exploration of the impact of disability type on EL experiences. We also did not compare the quality of EL experiences between participants with and without disabilities. It is likely that the quality of EL experiences differs depending on whether students have a disability, which may also determine whether the predictors of EL quality differ between students with and without disabilities.

4.2. Implications for Educators

Several practical implications can be drawn from our results. First, given the important role dispositional factors, such as the Big Five personality traits, play in quality of EL experiences, ensuring an excellent partnership with students with disabilities, which takes into account their personality rather than focusing primarily on demographic factors, is crucial. The satisfaction of students with disabilities with their EL experiences may be improved by increasing their social capital through support networks, whose members understand that individual differences in personality in addition to ability are paramount for success. This is consistent with the advice some participants gave to fellow EL students with similar disabilities, which included making friends with like-minded people who are sympathetic towards disability issues and staying connected with their existing social networks. Second, the lower satisfaction of students with disabilities with off-campus research or workplace settings merits greater scrutiny from individuals who supervise EL students at the workplace to ensure that the needs of students with disabilities are being properly met in off-campus settings. Third, providing a greater degree of training regarding the nature of disabilities, both visible and invisible, and the complex needs that accompany them, to instructors and supervisors involved in administering EL experiences is always important. But this must include a greater emphasis on the need to consider dispositional factors in order to create a more inclusive EL course design and more suitable accommodations consistent with UDL practices [16,24]. This is particularly relevant when examining SoTL principles, which encourage student participation in the development of the relevant curriculum [10,11,65]. One suggestion (see [66]) specifically advocates for incentivizing learning by ensuring that the student perspective is accounted for. From an EL perspective, and specifically one where students with disabilities are concerned, this incentivization is synonymous with student success.

5. Conclusions

As universities continue to prioritize inclusivity in their policies, the practical application of inclusivity measures often falls short [67]. The tenets of SoTL advocate for the deliberate inclusion of students within the decision-making processes pertaining to course design, as emphasized by Felten [10]. In addition, the UDL literature also highlights the importance of establishing an environment that supports all students [16,23,24]. Our findings underscore that medical model explanations for the disability experience, such as type and severity of disability, and demographic factors, such as gender do not significantly predict the quality of EL experiences among university students with disabilities. Such factors cannot be typically changed, and, as such, educators must learn to work with them. It is rather dispositional factors and overall adjustment and well-being variables, such as subjective well-being and the environmental mastery dimension of psychological well-being, that emerge as significant predictors of EL experience quality for students who have disabilities. This supports the social model approaches currently employed by accessibility offices. Accommodating such students according to their individual learning styles and their unique dispositions is a good start. However, applying UDL course design principles can create opportunities suitable for all students, regardless of disability, learning style, or dispositional factors. In such post-secondary inclusive learning environments, all students can develop the resilience necessary for EL success.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.B.K. and S.L.; methodology, S.B.K. and S.L.; investigation, M.d. and K.D.B.-A.; writing—original draft preparation, S.L.; writing—review and editing, S.B.K., M.d. and K.D.B.-A.; supervision, S.B.K.; project administration, S.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research has received no funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board (protocol #40181, 21 January 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent for participation was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interests.

References

  1. Kolb, A.Y.; Kolb, D.A. Experiential learning theory as a guide for experiential educators in higher education. Exp. Learn. Teach. High. Educ. 2017, 1, 7–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Dewey, J. How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process; D.C. Heath & Co Publishers: Boston, MA, USA, 1933; 301p. [Google Scholar]
  3. Lewin, K. Field Theory of Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers; Cartwright, D., Ed.; Harper & Row: Manhattan, NY, USA, 1951; 364p. [Google Scholar]
  4. Keeton, M.T.; Tate, P.J. Learning by Experience: What, Why, How; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1978; 109p. [Google Scholar]
  5. Kolb, A.Y.; Kolb, D.A. Learning styles and learning spaces: A review of the multidisciplinary application of experiential learning in higher education. In Learning Styles and Learning: A Key to Meeting the Accountability Demands in Education; Sims, R.R., Sims, S.J., Eds.; Nova Publishers: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 45–91. [Google Scholar]
  6. March, J. The Ambiguities of Experience; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2010; 168p. [Google Scholar]
  7. Dyer, B.; Schumann, D.W. Partnering knowledge and experience: The business classroom as laboratory. Mark. Educ. Rev. 1993, 3, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lengnick-Hall, C.A.; Sanders, M.M. Designing effective learning systems for management education: Student roles, requisite variety, and practicing what we preach. Acad. Manag. J. 1997, 40, 1334–1368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Austin, M.J.; Rust, D.Z. Developing an Experiential Learning Program: Milestones and challenges. Int. J. Teach. Learn. High. Educ. 2015, 27, 143–153. [Google Scholar]
  10. Felten, P. Principles of good practice in SoTL. Teach. Learn. Inq. 2013, 1, 121–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Trigwell, K. Evidence of the impact of scholarship of teaching and learning purposes. Teach. Learn. Inq. 2013, 1, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. deBraga, M.; Boyd, C.; Abdulnour, S. Using the principles of SoTL to redesign an advanced evolutionary biology course. Teach. Learn. Inq. 2015, 3, 15–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Wurdinger, S.; Allison, P. Faculty perceptions and use of experiential learning in higher education. J. e-Learn. Knowl. Soc. 2017, 13, 15–26. [Google Scholar]
  14. Bradley, J.; Miller, A. Widening participation in higher education: Constructions of “going to university”. Educ. Psychol. Pract. 2010, 26, 401–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Brigham, F.J.; Scruggs, T.E.; Mastropieri, M.A. Science education and students with learning disabilities. Learn. Disabil. Res. Pract. 2011, 26, 223–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Burgstahler, S.E.; Cory, R.C. (Eds.) Universal Design in Higher Education: From Principles to Practice; Harvard Education Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  17. Lawrie, G.; Marquis, E.; Fuller, E.; Newman, T.; Qiu, M.; Nomikoudis, M.; Roelofs, F.; van Dam, L. Moving towards inclusive learning and teaching: A synthesis of recent literature. Teach. Learn. Inq. 2017, 5, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Morris, T.H. Experiential learning—A systematic review and revision of Kolb’s model. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2020, 28, 1064–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bergsteiner, H.; Avery, G.C.; Neumann, R. Kolb’s experiential learning model: Critique from a modelling perspective. Stud. Contin. Educ. 2010, 32, 29–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Brown, K.; de Bie, A.; Aggarwal, A.; Joslin, R.; Williams-Habibi, S.; Sivanesanathan, V. Students with disabilities as partners: A case study on user testing an accessibility website. Int. J. Stud. Partn. 2020, 4, 97–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jarvis, P. Adult Learning in the Social Context, 1st ed.; Routledge: England, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Burgstahler, S.E. A collaborative model to promote career success for students with disabilities. J. Vocat. Rehabil. 2001, 16, 209–215. [Google Scholar]
  23. Edwards, M.; Poed, S.; Al-Nawab, H.; Penna, O. Academic accommodations for university students living with disability and the potential of universal design to address their needs. High. Educ. 2022, 84, 779–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Cumming, T.M.; Rose, M.C. Exploring universal design for learning as an accessibility tool in higher education: A review of the current literature. Aust. Educ. Res. 2022, 49, 1025–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Shakespeare, T. The social model of disability. Disabil. Stud. Read. 2006, 2, 197–204. [Google Scholar]
  26. Bruce, C.; Aylward, M.L. Accommodating disability at university. Disabil. Stud. Q. 2021, 41, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Saltes, N. Disability barriers in academia: An analysis of disability accommodation policies for faculty at Canadian universities. Can. J. Disabil. Stud. 2020, 9, 53–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Williams, G. Theorizing disability. An institutional history of disability. In Handbook of Disability Studies; Albrecht, G.L., Seelman, K.D., Bury, M., Eds.; Sage Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2001; pp. 123–144. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kowalski, R.M.; Morgan, C.A.; Drake-Lavelle, K.; Allison, B. Cyberbullying among college students with disabilities. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 57, 416–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hong, B.S.S. Qualitative analysis of the barriers college students with disabilities experience in higher education. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 2015, 56, 209–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Cunnah, W. Disabled students: Identity, inclusion and work-based placements. Disabil. Soc. 2015, 30, 213–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kiesel, L.R.; DeZelar, S.; Lightfoot, E. Challenges, barriers, and opportunities: Social workers with disabilities and experiences in field education. J. Soc. Work. Educ. 2018, 54, 696–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Versnel, J.; Hutchinson, N.L.; Munby, H.; Chin, P. Work-based learning for adolescents with learning disabilities: Creating a context for success. Except. Educ. Int. 2008, 18, 113–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lund, E.M.; Andrews, E.E.; Holt, J.M. How we treat our own: The experiences and characteristics of psychology trainees with disabilities. Rehabil. Psychol. 2014, 59, 367–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Griffin, D.K.; Rosenberg, H.; Cheyney, W.; Greenberg, B. A comparison of self-esteem and job satisfaction of adults with mild mental retardation in sheltered workshops and supported employment. Educ. Train. Ment. Retard. Dev. Disabil. 1996, 31, 142–150. [Google Scholar]
  36. Smedema, S.M.; Lee, D.; Bhattarai, M. An examination of the relationship of core self-evaluations and life satisfaction in college students with disabilities. Rehabil. Couns. Bull. 2022, 65, 129–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Rotter, J.B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychol. Monogr. 1966, 80, 609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Adams, K.S.; Proctor, B.E. Adaptation to college for students with and without disabilities: Group differences and predictors. J. Postsecond. Educ. Disabil. 2010, 22, 166–184. [Google Scholar]
  39. Smedema, S.M. Core self-evaluations and well-being in persons with disabilities. Rehabil. Psychol. 2014, 59, 407–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Estrada, L.; Dupoux, E.; Wolman, C. The relationship between locus of control and personal-emotional adjustment and social adjustment to college life in students with and without learning disabilities. Coll. Stud. J. 2006, 40, 43–55. [Google Scholar]
  41. Brown, D.; Cinamon, R.G. Personality traits’ effects on self-efficacy and outcome expectations for high school major choice. Int. J. Educ. Vocat. Guid. 2016, 16, 343–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Nigg, J.; Blaskey, L.; Huang-Pollock, C.; John, O. ADHD symptoms and personality traits: Is ADHD an extreme personality trait? ADHD Rep. 2002, 10, 6–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Komarraju, M.; Karau, S.J.; Schmeck, R.R. Role of the Big Five personality traits in predicting college students’ academic motivation and achievement. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2009, 19, 47–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hwang, K.; Johnston, M.V.; Smith, J.K. Adult attachment styles and life satisfaction in individuals with physical disabilities. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 2009, 4, 295–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Tansey, T.N.; Smedema, S.; Umucu, E.; Iwanaga, K.; Wu, J.R.; Cardoso, E.D.S.; Strauser, D. Assessing college life adjustment of students with disabilities: Application of the PERMA framework. Rehabil. Couns. Bull. 2018, 61, 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hughes, R.B.; Taylor, H.B.; Robinson-Whelen, S.; Nosek, M.A. Stress and women with physical disabilities: Identifying correlates. Women’s Health Issues 2005, 15, 14–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ardell, S.; Beug, P.; Hrudka, K. Perceived stress levels and support of student disability services. Univ. Sask. Undergrad. Res. J. 2016, 2, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Antaramian, S. Assessing psychological symptoms and well-being: Application of a dual-factor mental health model to understand college student performance. J. Psychoeduc. Assess. 2015, 33, 419–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Heiman, T.; Olenik-Shemesh, D. Students with LD in higher education: Use and contribution of assistive technology and website courses and their correlation to students’ hope and well-being. J. Learn. Disabil. 2012, 45, 308–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Grant, S.; Langan-Fox, J.; Anglim, J. The Big Five traits as predictors of subjective and psychological well-being. Psychol. Rep. 2009, 105, 205–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Koca-Atabey, M.; Karanci, A.N.; Dirik, G.; Aydemir, D. Psychological wellbeing of Turkish university students with physical impairments: An evaluation within the stress-vulnerability paradigm. Int. J. Psychol. 2011, 46, 106–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Cummings, S.M. Predictors of psychological well-being among assisted-living residents. Health Soc. Work. 2002, 27, 293–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Hollingshead, A.B. Four Factor Index of Social Status; Department of Sociology, Yale University: New Haven, CT, USA, 1975; manuscript in preparation. [Google Scholar]
  54. Üstün, T.B.; Kostanjsek, N.; Chatterji, S.; Rehm, J. (Eds.) Measuring Health and Disability: Manual for WHO Disability Assessment Schedule WHODAS 2.0; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  55. Lefcourt, H.M.; von Baeyer, C.L.; Ware, E.E.; Cox, D.J. The Multidimensional-multi-attributional Causality Scale: The development of a goal specific locus of control scale. Can. J. Behav. Sci. 1979, 11, 286–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Rosenberg, M. Society and the Adolescent Self-Image; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1965. [Google Scholar]
  57. John, O.P.; Srivastava, S. The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. Handb. Personal. Theory Res. 1999, 2, 102–138. [Google Scholar]
  58. Collins, N.L. Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotion, and behavior. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1996, 71, 810–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Cohen, S.; Kamarck, T.; Mermelstein, R. A global measure of perceived stress. J. Health Soc. Behav. 1983, 24, 385–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Cohen, S.; Hoberman, H.M. Positive events and social supports as buffers of life change stress. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1983, 13, 99–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Diener, E.D.; Emmons, R.A.; Larsen, R.J.; Griffin, S. The Satisfaction with Life Scale. J. Personal. Assess. 1985, 49, 71–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ryff, C.D. Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1989, 57, 1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Burgstahler, S.E. Creating Inclusive Learning Opportunities in Higher Education: A Universal Design Toolkit; Harvard Education Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  64. Mullins, L.; Preyde, M. The lived experience of students with an invisible disability at a Canadian university. Disabil. Soc. 2013, 28, 147–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hounsell, D.; McCune, V.; Litjens, J.; Hounsell, J. Subject Overview Report: Biosciences; Universities of Edinburgh: Edinburgh, UK, 2005; Available online: http://www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk//docs/BiosciencesSR.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2024).
  66. Abualrub, I.; Karseth, B.; Stensaker, B. The various understandings of learning environment in higher education and its quality implications. Qual. High. Educ. 2013, 19, 90–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Rankin, J.C.; Pearl, A.J.; de St Jorre, T.J.; McGrath, M.M.; Dyer, S.; Sheriff, S.; Armitage, R.; Ruediger, K.; Jere, A.; Zafar, S.; et al. Delving into institutional diversity messaging: A cross-institutional analysis of student and faculty interpretations of undergraduate experiences of equity, diversity, and inclusion in university websites. Teach. Learn. Inq. 2022, 10, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disabilities 04 00049 g001
Figure 1. Average EL quality by EL setting.
Figure 1. Average EL quality by EL setting.
Disabilities 04 00049 g001
Table 1. Frequencies and percentages of participants’ primary type of disability.
Table 1. Frequencies and percentages of participants’ primary type of disability.
Type of Disabilityn%
Physical/orthopedic1514.0
Deaf/hard of hearing or hearing impaired1413.1
Blind or visually impaired1110.3
Cognitive disability (including TBI)76.5
Autism87.5
Chronic health condition 87.5
Learning disability 87.5
ADHD1110.3
Psychiatric disability 2119.6
Other 43.7
Totals (N = 107)107100.0
Table 2. Frequencies and percentages of participants’ age of acquiring disability.
Table 2. Frequencies and percentages of participants’ age of acquiring disability.
Age of Acquiring Disabilityn%
Congenital or at birth1615.0
As a child (up to age 12)3330.8
As an adolescent (age 12–18)3633.6
As an adult 2220.6
Totals (N = 107)107100.0
Table 3. Frequencies and percentages of participants’ type of EL (experiential learning).
Table 3. Frequencies and percentages of participants’ type of EL (experiential learning).
Type of ELn%
Research4743.9
Work placement3028.0
International experiences 2624.3
Field trip43.7
Total (N = 107)107100.0
Table 4. Frequencies and percentages of participants’ type of EL setting.
Table 4. Frequencies and percentages of participants’ type of EL setting.
Type of EL Settingn%
On-campus research3129.2
Off-campus research 2927.4
Off-campus workplace practicum2321.7
International program 2119.8
None of the above 21.9
Total (N = 107)107100.0
Table 5. Average scores for items assessing quality of EL experiences.
Table 5. Average scores for items assessing quality of EL experiences.
VariableMSD
Satisfaction with EL experience3.271.129
Negative impact of disability on EL experience2.701.021
Level of accommodation from supervisor3.371.042
Level of support and knowledgeability of supervisors3.301.021
Table 6. Multiple regression analysis for variables predicting EL quality.
Table 6. Multiple regression analysis for variables predicting EL quality.
PredictorUnstandardized CoefficientsStandardized Coefficients 95% CI for β
βSEBetatsig.LowerUpper
Subjective well-being0.0900.0220.4854.150<0.0010.460.133
Year of study0.2970.0720.3854.153<0.0010.1540.441
Big Five Neuroticism0.5070.1880.2812.7000.0090.1310.883
Big Five Openness0.7610.2090.3753.640<0.0010.3431.180
Psychological well-being—
environmental mastery		−0.0740.037−0.253−2.0070.049−0.1470.000
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Liu, S.; Bazzana-Adams, K.D.; deBraga, M.; Kamenetsky, S.B. Factors Affecting Experiential Learning Experiences of University Students with Disabilities. Disabilities 2024, 4, 801-814. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities4040049

AMA Style

Liu S, Bazzana-Adams KD, deBraga M, Kamenetsky SB. Factors Affecting Experiential Learning Experiences of University Students with Disabilities. Disabilities. 2024; 4(4):801-814. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities4040049

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liu, Shaohong, Kayla D. Bazzana-Adams, Michael deBraga, and Stuart B. Kamenetsky. 2024. "Factors Affecting Experiential Learning Experiences of University Students with Disabilities" Disabilities 4, no. 4: 801-814. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities4040049

APA Style

Liu, S., Bazzana-Adams, K. D., deBraga, M., & Kamenetsky, S. B. (2024). Factors Affecting Experiential Learning Experiences of University Students with Disabilities. Disabilities, 4(4), 801-814. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities4040049

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop